U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Alaska
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-23-2017, 03:53 PM
 
6,697 posts, read 6,801,812 times
Reputation: 7542

Advertisements

The reassertion of Russia’s greatness has been a motif of Vladimir V. Putin’s presidency, and his projection of military might and cyberpower is in part why Russian-American relations are at their lowest point since the end of the Cold War.

So the 150th anniversary on Thursday of Russia’s sale of Alaska to the United States — an event few Americans may notice — was a day of mourning for some hard-right Russian nationalists who see the transaction as a gigantic blunder by the ailing czarist empire, one that reverberates as the major powers vie for influence over the Arctic and its natural riches in an age of climate change.




https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/w...-150.html?_r=0
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-23-2017, 05:33 PM
Status: "down for you is up" (set 4 days ago)
 
Location: Where the creatures meet
10,222 posts, read 5,247,400 times
Reputation: 35354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cida View Post
The reassertion of Russia’s greatness has been a motif of Vladimir V. Putin’s presidency, and his projection of military might and cyberpower is in part why Russian-American relations are at their lowest point since the end of the Cold War.

So the 150th anniversary on Thursday of Russia’s sale of Alaska to the United States — an event few Americans may notice — was a day of mourning for some hard-right Russian nationalists who see the transaction as a gigantic blunder by the ailing czarist empire, one that reverberates as the major powers vie for influence over the Arctic and its natural riches in an age of climate change.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/w...-150.html?_r=0
If Russia would spend more time on the present - diversifying its resource-extraction economy, for example, not to mention establishing a system in which there is reasonable recourse to the law, thus encouraging investment - and less time wringing its hands in lament over what once was and what might have been, then it might have a future that isn't as dreary as it looks now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2017, 01:51 AM
 
3,588 posts, read 1,235,021 times
Reputation: 2184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post
If Russia would spend more time on the present - diversifying its resource-extraction economy, for example, not to mention establishing a system in which there is reasonable recourse to the law, thus encouraging investment - and less time wringing its hands in lament over what once was and what might have been, then it might have a future that isn't as dreary as it looks now.
Russia has ALOT of potential. Alot of open land for people to spread out without it costing your soul for a quarter acre lot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2017, 03:10 AM
 
195 posts, read 58,893 times
Reputation: 73
I thought Trump and Pooty are in bed together?

Russia selling Alaska back in the old days is like someone today selling a piece of the moon. I'm not sure why it was taken seriously back then when everyone was superstitious about the god thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2017, 07:12 AM
 
Location: Oregon Coast
794 posts, read 204,238 times
Reputation: 994
The important part of the article.

Quote:
The sea otters who were the heart of then-thriving fur trade had almost been wiped out, and the Russians also feared that if gold were discovered — as it would be, in the Klondike Gold Rush that started in 1896 — the Americans might overrun the territory, said Susan Smith-Peter, a historian at the College of Staten Island in New York.

From the Russian point of view, the deal made a lot of sense,” she said. “They could irritate Britain, and they could have a closer relationship with the United States.”
They made the right decision. I believe even today Russia has more land than they really need. It would have been almost impossible for Russia to defend that much territory. Most likely there would have been a war, and they would have lost it anyway.

Take a look at a population map of Russia. Russia didn't have the population to settle Alaska, the US did.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2017, 11:43 AM
 
Location: Irving, TX
502 posts, read 423,373 times
Reputation: 698
Wow. I didn't believe that could be up to date, so I went strolling around the internet and various atlases, and it's true -- even western Russia is mostly miles and miles of miles and miles. VERY sparsely populated even by Texas standards, and though Houston and DFW are people-hives, we're much more sparse than either coast.

That said, they might have still kept it (my ancestors' neighbors couldn't take Canada, after all), but at what cost, if the only cash-cow they had was disappearing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2017, 12:40 PM
 
3,902 posts, read 900,196 times
Reputation: 1731
Russia is already over-expanded and struggling to populate the regions that it already has. I'm not sure if Alaska would be a help or a hindrance for them, besides, I doubt they would have been able to hold onto it, it would have stretched their military incredibly thin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2017, 12:42 PM
 
3,902 posts, read 900,196 times
Reputation: 1731
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer View Post
Russia has ALOT of potential. Alot of open land for people to spread out without it costing your soul for a quarter acre lot.
Russia has a very poor demographic situation, and is struggling to literally give away land in the far east.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2017, 02:06 PM
 
Location: Anchorage
674 posts, read 387,007 times
Reputation: 691
Article in today's paper.
https://www.adn.com/opinions/2017/04...not-to-alaska/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2017, 03:36 PM
 
3,588 posts, read 1,235,021 times
Reputation: 2184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz View Post
The important part of the article.



They made the right decision. I believe even today Russia has more land than they really need. It would have been almost impossible for Russia to defend that much territory. Most likely there would have been a war, and they would have lost it anyway.

Take a look at a population map of Russia. Russia didn't have the population to settle Alaska, the US did.
I don't think so, how many real wars have we had since WW2 for any meaningful chunk of territory? We have had good reasons to have war as well but it still has not happened.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2013 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $99,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Alaska
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top